In a candidly-worded statement this week, Dennis Daggett, Executive Vice-President of the International Longshoremen’s Association singled out semi-automated rail-mounted gantry cranes (RMGs) as being “at the center of the impasse” with the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX). The ILA broke off talks on November 12 for a new master contract at U.S. East and Gulf coast ports accounting for nearly half of total American maritime trade.
With an existing contract extension expiring on January 15, industry observers presently see little chance of a massive strike by 45,000 dockers being averted. A tentative agreement in early October which ended a three-day work stoppage included a 62% wage increase over six years.
In three previous contracts, the ILA was not able to halt the introduction of RMGs at the ports of NY/NJ and Virginia. But the union has seemingly drawn a line in the sand on this issue for a new master contract.
“The ILA is not against progress, innovation, or modernization—but we cannot support technology that jeopardizes jobs, threatens national security, and puts the future of the workforce at risk,” Mr Daggett stated.
“This is a pivotal moment in our history,” Mr. Daggett stressed, adding: “The decisions we make today will determine the future for generations to come.”
Commenting on past developments, Mr. Daggett noted: “In the early 2000s, under a different ILA administration, the employers introduced semi-automated RMGs at a greenfield terminal on the East Coast. They sold the ILA a vision that this new terminal would create thousands of jobs. It sounded like an opportunity, but hindsight reveals a much different picture. What seemed like a win for one port turned out to be the project that is becoming the model for automation that could potentially chip away at many jobs at almost every other terminal along the East and Gulf Coasts.
“At that time, the New Technology clause in our Master Contract required employers to file a letter of intent 120 days before implementing new equipment. However, after that notice was filed, employers essentially had free rein to unilaterally introduce whatever they wanted, without protecting the job functions or the roles of the workforce. It was a loophole that came at a cost to ILA members and their families.”
Mr. Daggett continued: “By the 2012-2013 Master Contract negotiations, we had learned from these mistakes. Under new leadership, the ILA secured workforce protections and guarantees, ensuring that automation would no longer be implemented without consideration of its impact on jobs. This progress continued in 2018, when we negotiated a prohibition on full automation. These agreements set clear limits on how far technology could go in replacing human labor.
“Today, employers are pushing to expand RMGs, claiming they are only “semi-automated” and necessary for safety and productivity. But let’s break this down.
The reality is that 95% of the work performed by RMGs is fully automated. From the moment a container is dropped off by a shuttle carrier, the RMG operates on its own lifting, stacking, and moving containers, including gantry and hoisting, without any human intervention. This includes the auto-stacking of containers in the container stack, which is also fully automated. Only in the last six feet of the container’s journey on the landside, when it is placed on a truck chassis, does an operator step in. But how long until employers automate those final six feet as well?
“This isn’t about safety or productivity—it’s about job elimination. The ILA has proven through data and real-world operations that RMGs are not more productive than traditional equipment operated by human workers. Faced with this evidence, employers have shifted their argument. Now, they claim that RMGs are needed to densify terminals and push out more volume, emphasizing their ability to stack nine containers across compared to six with traditional rubber-tired gantry cranes (RTGs). But this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny either. With all the advancements in technology, why can’t manufacturers design human-operated equipment capable of achieving the same density? This isn’t about meeting operational needs—it’s about replacing workers under the guise of progress while maximizing corporate profits at the expense of good-paying, family-sustaining U.S. jobs.”
Mr. Daggett further affirmed: “The automation agenda isn’t just a threat to jobs—it’s a risk to our national security and economy. Ports rely on interconnected systems that are highly vulnerable to cyberattacks. A single “glitch” can halt operations, as we’ve already seen with recent shutdowns at major ports. Just last week, a gate system glitch at a major South Atlantic port shut down the terminal entirely, preventing trucks from being processed for hours.
“Imagine if a foreign adversary, like China, exploited these vulnerabilities and hacked our port systems. With ports increasingly dependent on automation and green energy technologies, an attack could cripple the U.S. economy overnight. This isn’t hypothetical—it’s a new form of warfare that we are not prepared to defend against.”
(Photos of Port of Virginia and ILA rally)